The court clarified that claims regarding unpaid contract amounts should be considered despite procedural disputes.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

We have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.

2. This writ appeal is filed by the writ petitioner challenging as against the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prayer in the writ petition was for a consideration of the legal notices/representations preferred by the petitioner at Annexure - K and Annexure - K1 and to take appropriate steps to make payment to the petitioner. Learned Single Judge has non-suited the appellant on the ground that the matter is one of contract and that since the valid contract determines the rights and obligations of the parties, a writ petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus would not be maintainable.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is absolutely no factual dispute between the parties and the respondents have also admitted that works had been completed by the appellant and the amounts are due. It is submitted that in the above circumstances, the dismissal of the writ petition was completely unwarranted.

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 to

6 submits that there was two contracts for the conduct of work by the appellant as claimed by the appellant. It is further submitted that the estimated work was for an amount of Rs.82,81,000/- for one work and Rs.25,60,000/- for other work. The works were commenced on 20.12.2006 and 08.06.2006, respectively and were actually completed by the appellant on 10.08.2007 and 15.11.2006. It is submitted that as regards the first work, the appellant was liable to be paid only Rs.62,47,692.50/- as per the actual measurements taken at the time of completion of the said work in the presence of the appellant. Out of which, the appellant had already been paid Rs.57,60,405.20 and hence, due amount is only Rs.4,87,287.74/-. With regard to the second work, it is submitted that though the estimated cost was Rs.25,60,000/- after the completion of the work, it was found that the appellant was liable to be paid only Rs.23,21,145.95/- as per the actual measurements taken after completion of the work in the presence of the appellant. It is further stated that as per the payment register, the appellant has already been paid Rs.21,57,230.10/- and the amount due is only Rs.1,63,915.85. It is therefore contended that the amount due is much lower than what has been claimed by the appellant.

6. Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that it is an admitted case that two works as claimed by the appellant in the writ petition had actually being carried out by the writ petitioner and that amounts are due to be paid to the writ petitioner as claimed by him.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the details of the amounts claimed are available in Annexures-K and K1 and that the claim is liable to be considered in accordance with law, which was the only prayer sought for by the appellant in the writ petition.

8. Having considered the contentions advanced, we are of the opinion that the question as to the amount actually payable is the only dispute between the parties and in the absence of any specific dispute with regard to the works done by the appellant, the claim raised by the appellant is liable to be considered by the respondents. In the above view of the matter, this appeal is allowed. There will be a direction to the 5^th respondent to take up Annexures - K and K1 and any further representation that the petitioner may wish to submit before the 5^th respondent and to consider and pass orders on the same, after hearing the petitioner within four weeks. The amounts found due to be payable to the petitioner shall be paid with interest if any, as provided in the contract.